unofficial mirror of guile-user@gnu.org 
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Joris van der Hoeven <TeXmacs@math.u-psud.fr>
Cc: Greg Troxel <gdt@ir.bbn.com>
Subject: Re: Resizing hash tables in Guile
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:52:12 +0100 (MET)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1030213104406.8318D-100000@anh> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1045081065.1033.451.camel@localhost>


> > I've been thinking that maybe we should continue the move and let the
> > resizing tables entirely replace the fixed size ones.  It seems a
> > little silly to have to explain to Guile users that there are two
> > (sorry, eight) different kinds of hash tables...  Also, I think the
> > opacity of the resizing table objects is an advantage rather than a
> > disadvantage.  If they are opaque, we can any time modify the
> > underlying implementation (the well-known data abstraction argument).
> > 
> > What do you say?
> 
> I think that this is a a good idea, but I would like the optional size
> argument to still be there as an initial guess about the number of
> items to expect to avoid resizing and to optimize performance when
> we have advance information about how many items to expect.

In fact, it is even better to specify the resizing behaviour
using optional arguments. For instance:

	up-ratio   : size up when size/slots >= up-ratio
	up-factor  : new nr slots := old nr slots * up-factor
	down-ratio : size up when size/slots < down-ratio
	down-factor: new nr slots := old nr slots / down-factor

Using a small up-ratio will improve the constant factor in the lookup speed,
but require the usage of a larger number of slots.

> Of course this additional level of abstraction is nice as it also gives
> a future option to use trees if the user e.g gives an optional
> comparision operator.

Yes.

> By the way, Joris van der Hoeven mentioned that this type of resizing
> hash tables are faster than trees, which have a time complexity
> of O(log n)+reshuffling time if they are balanced. Do you have any
> numbers showing how much faster and if possible if there are any
> conditions? The reshuffling time will grow at least O(n) when the
> size of our linear tables increases if I have understood right.

Well: lookup time in a balanced search tree is O(log n),
while lookup time in a table is O(1)...



_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user


  parent reply	other threads:[~2003-02-13  9:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-02-08 11:00 Efficiency and flexibility of hash-tables Joris van der Hoeven
2003-02-08 13:57 ` Roland Orre
2003-02-08 14:14   ` Joris van der Hoeven
2003-02-08 14:55     ` Roland Orre
2003-02-08 15:14       ` Joris van der Hoeven
2003-02-08 15:31         ` Mikael Djurfeldt
2003-02-11 11:14           ` Joris van der Hoeven
2003-02-11 11:28             ` Joris van der Hoeven
2003-02-11 12:50               ` Mikael Djurfeldt
2003-02-08 15:44         ` Roland Orre
2003-02-10  9:55           ` Andreas Rottmann
2003-02-10 14:24             ` Greg Troxel
2003-02-10 15:00               ` Roland Orre
2003-02-10 16:52                 ` Mikael Djurfeldt
2003-02-10 17:09                   ` Roland Orre
2003-02-10 17:11                   ` Mikael Djurfeldt
2003-02-11 13:59                     ` Resizing hash tables in Guile Mikael Djurfeldt
2003-02-11 17:34                       ` Roland Orre
2003-02-12 11:41                         ` Marius Vollmer
2003-02-12 16:10                       ` Marius Vollmer
2003-02-12 17:53                         ` Mikael Djurfeldt
2003-02-12 20:17                           ` Roland Orre
2003-02-13  9:35                             ` Mikael Djurfeldt
2003-02-13 13:55                               ` Harvey J. Stein
2003-02-13 14:24                                 ` Joris van der Hoeven
2003-02-13 18:30                                   ` Harvey J. Stein
2003-02-13 20:02                                     ` Paul Jarc
2003-02-13  9:52                             ` Joris van der Hoeven [this message]
2003-02-12 20:55                       ` Rob Browning
2003-02-13 10:43                         ` Mikael Djurfeldt
2003-02-12 20:47       ` Efficiency and flexibility of hash-tables Paul Jarc
2003-02-12 21:58         ` Roland Orre

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Pine.GSO.3.96.1030213104406.8318D-100000@anh \
    --to=texmacs@math.u-psud.fr \
    --cc=gdt@ir.bbn.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).